Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)P.K. Mohanram vs B.N. Ananthachary & Ors on 15 March, 2010
The above aspect of the matter can be seen from the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2010 4 SCC 161 (P.K.Mohanram Vs. B.N.Ananthachary and others) adverted above and in such circumstances, it is seen that it cannot be held, based on the decision relied upon by the plaintiff's counsel, that Ex.A1 settlement deed involved in the present case does not transfer any interest in praesenti in favour of the plaintiff. Thus it can be seen that by way of Ex.A1, the plaintiff would be entitled to acquire absolute interest in respect of the first item of the suit properties, no doubt on the demise of his father viz., the first defendant.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Govt. Of Karnataka And Anr vs K.C.Subramanya And Ors on 16 September, 2013
In this connection, the plaintiff's counsel relied upon the decisions reported in 2008(4)CTC(507) (T.Paramasivam Vs. N.Babu and another), 2014 (15) SCC 686 (Lekhraj Bansal Vs. State of Rajasthan and another) and 2014 (13) SCC 468 (State of Karnataka and another Vs. K.C.Subramanya and others) and a perusal of the above said decisions would go to show that the defendants having knowledge about the existence of the purported Will cannot be allowed to place the same at the belated stage, when no plausible explanation has been averred on their part for not placing the same before the Courts below at the earliest opportunity. That apart, when the veracity of the Will is in doubt and if really such a Will had been executed by the first defendant, the same would have been reflected in the written statement and the very fact that the said Will had not been disclosed in the written statement would go to show that the said Will is not a genuine document. That apart the first defendant examined as DW3 has not whispered anything about the said Will during the course of his evidence. It is thus seen that it is highly doubtful whether the Will now projected by the defendants would have been really executed by the first defendant as now claimed by them.
Ayyaswami Gounder And Ors vs Munnuswamy Gounder And Ors on 25 September, 1984
In this connection, the plaintiff's counsel relied upon the decisions reported in 1984 (4) SCC 376 (Ayyaswami Gounder and others Vs. Munnuswamy Gounder and others), 2012 (2) MWN Civil 295 (C.Durairaj Vs. K.C.Vellai) and 1991 (1) L.W. 339 (Saraswathy and another Vs. Ramaiya Nadar and another) and 1998 (1) CTC 22 (V.Devarajan Vs. R.Purushothaman and three others). A perusal of the principles of law enunciated in the above said decision would go to show that when material and substantial injury is likely to be caused to a co-owner in the enjoyment of his property, injunction can be granted against the other co-owners and in this case, when it is seen that the first item of the suit properties can be enjoyed only by having access through the second item and when the defendants are shown and established to be interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the first item of the suit properties by the plaintiff by obstructing his enjoyment as regards the second item, it is seen that the first appellate Court has rightly taken into consideration, the total aspects of the case in the right perspective and accordingly, granted the relief of injunction also against the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's right in using the second item of suit properties as an access to reach the first item of the suit properties for enjoying the same. By way of the grant of the above said relief, the right to enjoyment of the second item of the suit properties by the defendants is not put to an end, on the other hand, only the right of the plaintiff is safeguarded from the unlawful acts of the defendants in preventing his enjoyment of the first item of the suit properties through the second item of the suit properties. Accordingly, it is found that the grant of relief of injunction in favour of the plaintiff by the first appellate Court also does not call for any interference.
Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Ponnuchami Servai vs Balasubramanian And Ors. on 10 March, 1981
14. Still, the counsel for the defendant contended that inasmuch as the interest in the first item of the suit properties had not been transferred to the plaintiff in praesenti under Ex.A1 and it had been intended to be to be transferred to the plaintiff only on the death of the first defendant, it is stated that the plaintiff cannot claim any right to the first item of the suit properties based on Ex.A1 as the said document thereby would only constitute a Will and not a settlement deed and inasmuch as the said document had been subsequently revoked by the first defendant, the plaint suit should fail and in this connection, the decision reported in AIR 1982 Madras 281 (Ponnuchami Servai Vs. Balasubramanian and others) is relied upon by him. However, the above argument does not merit acceptance. In the light of the above discussions, when it is found that the intention of the first defendant is to only confer absolute right on the plaintiff in respect of the first item of the suit properties and accordingly, he had chosen to execute the settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff, no doubt, imposing certain conditions as adverted above, in such view of the matter, the mere postponement of the interest in the property comprised under the document in favour of the plaitnff till the death of the first defendant by itself would not render the document as a revokable one and thereby the said document cannot be construed as a Will. Considering the decisions above referred to and relied upon by the plaintiff's counsel, when the first defendant has not reserved any right of revocation under Ex.A1 and further, when the execution of and validity of Ex.A1 has been amply established as per law by the plaintiff through the evidence of PWs1 to 3 and that apart, the execution of the above said document on his own volition has been admitted by the first defendant himself examined as DW3 and that apaprt, when the first defendant has also testified that he has not executed any document revoking the settlement deed as such and when the intention of the first defendant could be gathered from the contents of Ex.A1 and his evidence that he intended to convey only absolute right in favour of the plaintiff in the first item of the suit properties under the said document excepting postponing the transfer of interest in the same till his death, it is seen that the restrictive conditions contained therein would not operate against the import of the document viz., the settlement deed and in such view of the matter, it is seen that the decision relied upon by the defendant's counsel as such , in my considered opinion, would not be applicable to the case at hand. That apart, as rightly put forth by the plaintiff's counsel, it is seen that the decision relied upon by the defendant's counsel as adverted above was found and held to be determined only on the facts and circumstance of the case pertaining to the said case and accordingly, on that basis, Ex.A1 settlement involved in the present case cannot be declared or determined to be a Will and not a settlement deed.
Lekhraj Bansal vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 25 February, 2014
In this connection, the plaintiff's counsel relied upon the decisions reported in 2008(4)CTC(507) (T.Paramasivam Vs. N.Babu and another), 2014 (15) SCC 686 (Lekhraj Bansal Vs. State of Rajasthan and another) and 2014 (13) SCC 468 (State of Karnataka and another Vs. K.C.Subramanya and others) and a perusal of the above said decisions would go to show that the defendants having knowledge about the existence of the purported Will cannot be allowed to place the same at the belated stage, when no plausible explanation has been averred on their part for not placing the same before the Courts below at the earliest opportunity. That apart, when the veracity of the Will is in doubt and if really such a Will had been executed by the first defendant, the same would have been reflected in the written statement and the very fact that the said Will had not been disclosed in the written statement would go to show that the said Will is not a genuine document. That apart the first defendant examined as DW3 has not whispered anything about the said Will during the course of his evidence. It is thus seen that it is highly doubtful whether the Will now projected by the defendants would have been really executed by the first defendant as now claimed by them.
G.Venkadesan vs Rajathiammal on 25 October, 2016
In this connection, as rightly argued by the plaintiff's counsel it is found that, the conditions imposed in the settlement deed that the plaintiff should take the property absolutely only after the life time of the settlor by itself would not render the document as not a settlement deed and only a Will, can be understood, particularly, in the light of the principles of law enunciated in the decisions reported in 1997 (1)CTC 256 (J.Kuppuswami Mudali and others Vs.Mahalingam), 2016 SCC online Madras 9800 (G.Venkadesan Vs. Rajathiammal), 2010 (4) SCC Page No.161 (P.K.Mohan Ram Vs. B.N.Ananthachary and others) and 2017 SCC Online Mad 8491 (1. B.M.Kotteswaran 2.
T.Paramasivam vs N.Babu on 16 April, 2008
In this connection, the plaintiff's counsel relied upon the decisions reported in 2008(4)CTC(507) (T.Paramasivam Vs. N.Babu and another), 2014 (15) SCC 686 (Lekhraj Bansal Vs. State of Rajasthan and another) and 2014 (13) SCC 468 (State of Karnataka and another Vs. K.C.Subramanya and others) and a perusal of the above said decisions would go to show that the defendants having knowledge about the existence of the purported Will cannot be allowed to place the same at the belated stage, when no plausible explanation has been averred on their part for not placing the same before the Courts below at the earliest opportunity. That apart, when the veracity of the Will is in doubt and if really such a Will had been executed by the first defendant, the same would have been reflected in the written statement and the very fact that the said Will had not been disclosed in the written statement would go to show that the said Will is not a genuine document. That apart the first defendant examined as DW3 has not whispered anything about the said Will during the course of his evidence. It is thus seen that it is highly doubtful whether the Will now projected by the defendants would have been really executed by the first defendant as now claimed by them.